Poll: Should Civ4 go 3D?

[LordBashHeart]

Is it just me or have you guys been waiting for these Civ games to go full 3D.

No more grids, and a map you can dynamically zoom from the global map right down to seeing the mud on the calvery's feet?

I understand the current format has a long and presdigious liniage (ahh remember empire?) , but this is quite restricting in a lot of ways.

We all know the graphics cards can hack it, by the time the next Civ is released the CPU's can handle it (ok maybey thats a bit of wishful thinking).

So come on Cast your vote!

1) I am quite happy in my grid shaped world thank you

2) I'm an eye candy sorta person if you know what I mean

3) I want is in 12D man...

-LordBashHeart

[philler]

leave it the way it is.

graphic improvements is *not* what civ needs, IMO.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by philler
leave it the way it is.

graphic improvements is *not* what civ needs, IMO.

Agreed. Game dynamics need a lot more work before fundamentally changing the eye-candy can be justified.

Robert

[ACooper]

PPPPLLLLLEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEE NNNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

[Thrawn05]

I say leave it. Even though I don't mind 3D war games. I one of the few that prefers SW: Force Commander over that Battlegrounds game.

[Kenjura]

Go 3d! 3d has a stigma with the old-school gamers. Yeah, I played civ1 and civ2. I played old text games. I thought DOOM was the most amazing thing when it came out.

3d is no longer an option, it's a reality. Most modern pc's are far better at 3d processing than 2d. Even advanced 2d machines are catered for image quality and video, not civ3.


The 2d graphics in civ2 are difficult to develop (given the iterations) and grind the cpu to a halt. Even on a 1.4 Ghz athlon with a Matrox G550 video card (professional-quality 2d card), the civ3 map scrolls at about 4 frames per second.

My computer can animate the most modern first-person shooters, with their amazing graphics, at framerates well past 90 in 1024x768 resolution, with all the bells and whistles.

The current civ3 graphics would be child's play to implement even with an old 3d engine. You could easily improve the graphics, add minor animated features (clouds, maybe, or even swaying trees), and even old 3d cards wouldn't break a sweat. Also, scrolling and animation speed wouldn't even be an issue. Not to mention you could zoom to whatever view you liked, and rotate the map how you pleased, without any additional graphics being made.

3d would make the game EASIER to animate. 3d is the reality, not the ideal. Yes, go 3d.

Besides, a 2003/2004 release of a civ sequel couldn't possible compete with ultra-realistic and beautiful games like doom 3 and unreal 2. I'm surprised Infogrames didn't insist on a "modern, snazzy" 3d look for the game for marketing appeal.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

[LordBashHeart]

One thing about the 2d thing bugs me a bit. When you have all your troops guarding your northern border and they are fortified, they all face the wrong way.

Little things like that get to me.

[ACooper]

Leave it the way it is. There has to be something left for us "old school" gamers.

[LordBashHeart]

Isn't that Civ3?

How about if Civ4 has a retro button. It overlays a red grid over the terrain and forces your troops to follow it.

Wouldn't be that hard to do...

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by LordBashHeart
Isn't that Civ3?

How about if Civ4 has a retro button. It overlays a red grid over the terrain and forces your troops to follow it.

Wouldn't be that hard to do...

How about each unit be a little bitmap square like in the SNES Civ game?

[LordBashHeart]

I can hear all the hard-core, old-school, die-hard (Is there any I left out) gamerz dropping from heart attacks at this thread.

EEEK!

[ACooper]

What I'm saying is this:

There are many of us who have been with the Civilization series from the start. I have played every version from the original onward. People like me like the basic way it is with tiles and moving units 1 square per turn, etc. We like it turn based.

Besides, a 3d rendering of a planet "right down to the mud" do you realize how much processing power that would take? Those who argue that 3d is easier on the computer than 2d need to check out the real world.

Why do all these people new to the game want to change what the game is? It's our game. There are enough upstart games out there for you younger / newer guys. Please don't try to screw ours up.


Thank you

[SpencerH]

Would we need the special glasses?

[Bill9999]

I could care less. It looks fine the way it is. Want to update the way it looks. Great. Woo - frickin' - Hoo. I think there is a laundry list of other more important things that need to be addressed.

Would it add anything to the game? I think very little, if anything.

[LordBashHeart]

Don't make the mistake of thinking because of my "Settler" status that I am a neubie to these sort of games.

Let me cast my mind back.... yes I remember now...

(screen wobbles - fade to 198?)

There I am hooking up two Amigas in my house with a null modem to play Empire. It wasn't multiplayer, we just started a two player game and passed the save files between the two computers, saving us constantly having to stand up to give the chair to the other person and having to leave the room.

(Screen wobbles - fade to 1992)

There I am at work after-hours at work with four or five of my compadres loading up Empire II with multiplayer capability. Whoa, my jaw hits the floor and my tounge rolls out and under the desk.

(screen wobbles - fade to present)

There we go... been there done that. I have loved and adored these games for 10+ years, and even that long ago I could picture what it was going to be like all 3D'ed.

I'm still waiting....

[Kenjura]

Originally posted by ACooper
There are many of us who have been with the Civilization series from the start. I have played every version from the original onward. People like me like the basic way it is with tiles and moving units 1 square per turn, etc. We like it turn based.

And? Your point? The question is the graphics, not gameplay. There's no question that we'd keep the tiles, and we definately wouldn't lose the turns. You sound like a christian reacting to the first tv. I've played em all too, and I wouldn't mind 3d.

Besides, a 3d rendering of a planet "right down to the mud" do you realize how much processing power that would take? Those who argue that 3d is easier on the computer than 2d need to check out the real world.

No, that level is ridiculous. I'm talking zoom not much closer than the current close zoom, and not too much farther than the current far zoom. The view would be the same, not some silly shogun rip-off. Besides, I'd like to see you back up your 3d rendering knowledge with some detailed explanations, mr. hardware man.

Why do all these people new to the game want to change what the game is? It's our game. There are enough upstart games out there for you younger / newer guys. Please don't try to screw ours up.

That's just garbage. I played civ1. I played civ2. I played alpha centauri. Now I play civ3. Some day I may play civ4. I've also been programming computers since the first grade. I don't lord that over you, mister old school. I don't "brag" about how my first computer was an ibm xt that took 3 minutes to load frogger. Even if I did, some guy would come bragging about his vacuum tubes. I have some vacuum tubes. I have an altair. You know, the altair, the first personal computer. It could add and multiply 8 bits. You know what? It's old and useless.

It's so funny when people who've been using computers since 1992 brag about how "old school" they are. I'm not bragging myself either, because there's nothing noble about having used old computers a long time ago, and having appreciated the old games back in the old days.

Firaxis does not exist to please you and a handful of other "old school" gamers. As much as they like you, they need to earn a living, and I'm sure they'd like the opportunity to get new players into the civ series, which, as "buggy" and "beta" as it may be, is nonetheless outstanding when held up against many modern games.


Your "old school" ways mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Thank you

No no, thank you.



And thus, my first post ever that could potentially fall under the "flame" category. It had to happen.

[ACooper]

I don't want to continue a flame war, but you seem so hostile.

I was stating my opinion that people like me like it the way it is. I let you state you opinions, you let me state mine. (As a Christian I take stong offense to your TV remark. That has no basis in fact whatsoever.)

As a computer systems engineer for the past 14 years, let me tell you that 2d is easier for the system to handle than 3d. You know why, simple math. (and I'll explain simply for you) 2d has only an X and Y axis. 3d has an X,Y and Z axis and the "Z" has to be converted to be represented on a screen that only can show X and Y. Really it's not that hard, and for most applications it's no big deal, but when you talk about represtenting the whole world all those extra "Z" add up to quite a bit. (granted you wouldn't have to do all the calculations at the same time)

I have never asked Firaxis to please me, but you "newbies" do all the time. I built my first computer when I was 7 and my first professional technical job at 15, I'm glad you were programming in first grade, maybe next year when you are in 3rd grade you'll learn a few more things.





Sometimes I'm amazed how some of you people don't get it and want to ruin Civ for the rest of us. Trully amazing.

That's the end of the flame war for me. (maybe)

My vote for 3D is no.

[SpencerH]

Lets inject another variant. The choice to engage in 3D battles a la shogun. When there's a battle you're given a choice to fight it out or to allow simplified combat (as we have). Sure, it would take more computing power but I was surprised by the low min requirements for CIV3 anyway. Someone posted it plays fine on a PII 233. It seems to me that the designers were not looking to put forward a "next generation" game with CIV3.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Lets inject another variant. The choice to engage in 3D battles a la shogun. When there's a battle you're given a choice to fight it out or to allow simplified combat (as we have). Sure, it would take more computing power but I was surprised by the low min requirements for CIV3 anyway. Someone posted it plays fine on a PII 233. It seems to me that the designers were not looking to put forward a "next generation" game with CIV3.

Now that I can and will agree with. Star Trek: Birth of the Federation did this also with pretty good game mechanics.

[Kenjura]

Not to continue a flame war or anything (and then go on and do it), but I can't believe you perpetuate this "newbie" thing.

Forget the Christian remark, I wasn't referencing anything, just overexaggerating. For every bit of amazingly basic information you can provide on axes (and surprisingly nothing about the complex matrix calculations that form the basis of 3d rendering), I can show you benchmarks galore and reports by respected hardware reviewers that modern 3d accelerator cards are better at 3d than they are at 2d in a sad majority of cases. That alone is the only basis behind what I said.

Besides, in 2003 or 2004, or whenever civ 4 may or may not come out, 3d on this level will be so painfully easy that it shouldn't even be an issue.

That garbage about the third grade was juvenile. Insults don't prove anything.

I'm sure Firaxis will take your vote into account. Actually, I doubt they're even close to thinking about civ4, with all the *****ing that goes on over civ3. Or maybe they've given up on this version altogether. Who can say.

[ACooper]

I can assure you that Firaxis is continuing to work on Civ3.

As for the 3D I was explaining it in as simple terms possible. Whenever you have more than 1 axis you have a matix and a 3d rendering matrix is not very complex. Anyway, sorry for the confusion of over simplicity, I'm at work and I need to keep these posts short and simple.


Truce. I don't like the idea, you do. We won't change each others minds. Let's leave it there.

[Sandman]

Go 3D? Absolutely!

A spherical map would then be possible, which I think would be brilliant. 3D is not just about eye candy.

I'm not crazy about tiles and turns either. They're a really crude method of doing things, only in place because of limits of the technology when civ1 came out, and civs boardgame heritage.
I don't think that they are inherent to the civ experience. It's called civilization after all, not 'tiles 'n' turns'.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by LordBashHeart
I can hear all the hard-core, old-school, die-hard (Is there any I left out) gamerz dropping from heart attacks at this thread.

EEEK!

I did NOT drop dead. By the time Civ IV comes out should that ever happen I would expect PC's to be about ten times faster and about the same for video cards based on the time frame involved. Four or five years between Civ one and two and three.

Of course while I have been playing computer games since before there were PCs (just barely) I am no grognard. Maybe I don't count except for the heart attack part. Haven't had one of those but I am old enough.

I vote for three D so why wasn't that actually one of the choices. Three D is neither 12 D nor inherently mere eye candy. Its a usefull tool.

[Kenjura]

I'll let sandman and ethelred carry on the fight for me.

It's a purely academic concern, anyway.

[ACooper]

It is interesting that "grid shaped" is leading. Though these polls are very unscientific.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by ACooper
I don't want to continue a flame war, but you seem so hostile.

I was stating my opinion that people like me like it the way it is. I let you state you opinions, you let me state mine. (As a Christian I take stong offense to your TV remark. That has no basis in fact whatsoever.)

As a computer systems engineer for the past 14 years, let me tell you that 2d is easier for the system to handle than 3d. You know why, simple math. (and I'll explain simply for you) 2d has only an X and Y axis. 3d has an X,Y and Z axis and the "Z" has to be converted to be represented on a screen that only can show X and Y. Really it's not that hard, and for most applications it's no big deal, but when you talk about represtenting the whole world all those extra "Z" add up to quite a bit. (granted you wouldn't have to do all the calculations at the same time)

I have never asked Firaxis to please me, but you "newbies" do all the time. I built my first computer when I was 7 and my first professional technical job at 15, I'm glad you were programming in first grade, maybe next year when you are in 3rd grade you'll learn a few more things.

Sometimes I'm amazed how some of you people don't get it and want to ruin Civ for the rest of us. Trully amazing.

That's the end of the flame war for me. (maybe)

My vote for 3D is no.

ACooper, by the time Civ4 is released, which will probably be several years from now, computers will be so powerful and lightning fast that they will easily be able to handle the demanding power that 3D graphics require. Even today, the Pentium 4 processor handles 3D graphics with amazing ease! And several years from now we'll all have newer faster computers anyway. These things become pieces of junk after a few years. LOL. Enough said.

[ACooper]

Cloud9 - very valid point. But I'd still vote no. I guess I'm a stick in the mud.

(but as of this posting I'm in the majority)

[Harovan]

Get thee hence, Satan! Civ and 3D? You must be kidding...

[Carver]

Originally posted by SpencerH
It seems to me that the designers were not looking to put forward a "next generation" game with CIV3.

Which is exactly why so many people were dissapointed. Contrary to being next generation, Civ3 is almost a step backwards. (I just said this in another thread but bear with me) Fewer techs and gov'ts. No SMAC style social engineering. No giving units to other civs. No "call off vendetta". No snazzy phrases with each new tech; this could be even better than SMAC with actual invetors and historians desribing the impact of new discovories.

3D... I was hoping for 3D in Civ3.

Personally, I would be more excited at the prospect of CTP3 than anything else. (Any chance there are a bunch of elves working away in secret, ready to suprise us?) Civ3 failed to be revolutionary. CTP's centralized governace - public works - and futuristic weapons are the wave of the future. The massive tile improvement slowly transformed the look of the game. Seeing simple plains, mountains and grasslands eventually transformed into vast arrays of hydroponic farms and megamines, with robotic fisheries at sea, never failed to impress me with a truly epochal experiance.

I vote for a 3D CTP3>

BTW, SpencerH, do you ever see Courteny Cox around town? That girl is hot!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Good point, Carver.

And by the way, Civ3 is NOT the instant classic it should've become. At least in my world it isn't.